MMA SmacktalkMMA Smacktalk is for all the cheering, jeering, and smack-talking that you want. This is the stuff that isn't appropriate for the MMA Discussion forum. Rules are light, so if you don't have a sense of humor, then don't go here!

Sometimes, people lose someone close to them and decide the deceased person would want them to "celebrate life" rather than mourn.

And, if that happens to be the case, what's wrong with that, exactly?... Its not necessarily etched in stone that someone is a dick. Some people cope with tragedy by going out and trying to drink their problems away.

Read the book. That's not what happened.

__________________
His helmet was stifling, it narrowed his vision. And he must see far. His shield was heavy. It threw him off balance. And his target is far away.

i have stated Matt Hughes is a douche a while back. i tried to track down the original post i made about this.. but could not find it.

- he has excuses for all his losses, always someone else's fault.
- when he wins, they are expected because his opponents are flawed
- he talks about MMA like he invented it
- he talks down on other forms of MMA that is not Wrestling, claiming Wrestling is the best and the original form of MA.
- in all his interviews, he comes off as a complete tool, displaying extreme arrogance when it's not deserved. he truly believes the 'HOF' hype.

People need to chill out. Matt Hughes is a douche, yes. But this makes him sound like a villian. This guys summary is clearly very biased.

For the record, here's a family Christmas video from Matt Hughes. You can see his releationship between he and his siblings. After your sister would wack the piss out of you for all those years, at some point when you could actually beat her, I'm pretty sure you would do so too. If she doesn't hate Matt for gut punching her, why do you guys care so much?

Good lord, those monsters! This settles it! Video proof that those scumbags beat their sister!

Why do you feel the need to defend Hughes?

Clearly the synopsis is biased, but by the simple nature of the book being partially written by Hughes means the book is also biased.

Are you trying to say that none of the unsavory events described in the synopsis (and the book) ever happened? Are you trying to say that for some reason we can't use these events to form a basic picture of Hughes personality based on what we have already seen for years (interviews, post fight comments, TUF)?

The book confirms to some degree he is a bully. That is enough for me.

Clearly anyone with a head on their shoulders will take the synopsis with a grain of salt. But it is also clear, and not just from the book or the synopsis, that Hughes was a bully.

Clearly the synopsis is biased, but by the simple nature of the book being partially written by Hughes means the book is also biased.

Are you trying to say that none of the unsavory events described in the synopsis (and the book) ever happened? Are you trying to say that for some reason we can't use these events to form a basic picture of Hughes personality based on what we have already seen for years (interviews, post fight comments, TUF)?

The book confirms to some degree he is a bully. That is enough for me.

Clearly anyone with a head on their shoulders will take the synopsis with a grain of salt. But it is also clear, and not just from the book or the synopsis, that Hughes was a bully.

"If personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures"...

The question is, why are people who have never met the man and haven’t read the book so eager to latch on to this jealous idiot’s piece of idiocy and hold it up as proof that Matt is an “immoral douche bag, disgrace to society, skidmark on the underpants of society,******* scumbag, the only fighter I can truly hate” (that’s only from the first 4 pages)

I have met him several times and always found him to be nice, friendly, and a great coach.If you ever get a chance to attend a seminar don't miss it. Why would you want to repeat and perpetuate things you don’t know to be true, about a man you don’t know, who wrote a book you haven’t read?

Please tell me in specific detail what he has done (be specific please) to earn such treatment.

The question is, why are people who have never met the man and havenít read the book so eager to latch on to this jealous idiotís piece of idiocy and hold it up as proof that Matt is an ďimmoral douche bag, disgrace to society, skidmark on the underpants of society,******* scumbag, the only fighter I can truly hateĒ (thatís only from the first 4 pages)

I have met him several times and always found him to be nice, friendly and funny. Why would you want to repeat and perpetuate things you donít know to be true about a man you donít know who wrote a book you havenít read?

Please tell me in specific detail what he has done (be specific please) to earn such treatment.

That one was mine ^.^

__________________

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. ~ Thomas Jefferson

The question is, why are people who have never met the man and havenít read the book so eager to latch on to this jealous idiotís piece of idiocy and hold it up as proof that Matt is an ďimmoral douche bag, disgrace to society, skidmark on the underpants of society,******* scumbag, the only fighter I can truly hateĒ (thatís only from the first 4 pages)

I have met him several times and always found him to be nice, friendly, and a great coach.If you ever get a chance to attend a seminar don't miss it. Why would you want to repeat and perpetuate things you donít know to be true, about a man you donít know, who wrote a book you havenít read?

Please tell me in specific detail what he has done (be specific please) to earn such treatment.

Hughes may or may not deserve it, and clearly no one has specific examples that would warrant being called those things.

But Matt is also a celebrity and people are going to bash (or praise) him and infer what they want to from the media. So does he "deserve" it? Does any celeb? We got to see a lot of him on TUF and personally I am making the assumption that if that is how he acts when he knows he is on camera there is a good chance he may be worse off camera.

In similar assumptive fashion I also think that since Hughes has no intention of hurting his own image he wrote the book with any shady events in the best possible light.

If people are allowing this synopsis to form or change their opinion on Hughes then i'm right along with you in arguing the fallacy. But I have always had a strong dislike to Hughes, founded or not.